Preview
LAW OFFICES OF
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864
Law Offices of
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP
DOUGLAS A. SEARS, ESQ. (SBN 48646)
3638 American River Drive
Sacramento, California 95864
Telephone: (916) 978-3434
Facsimile: (916) 978-3430
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Defendant,
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
xxxx xxxx; NEHA xxxx; GORI xxxx;
SHALU xxxx; RAKHI xxxx; ANJU
xxxx;
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF MILPITAS; LORELAY
ROBLES-PARTIDA; PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY; and DOES 1-40,
inclusive,
Defendants.
CITY OF MILPITAS,
Cross-Complainant,
Vv.
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA; and
ROES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Cross- Defendants.
COMES NOW, cross-defendant LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA, and in answering cross-
complainant CITY OF MILPITAS’s cross-complaint herein admits, denies, and alleges, as follows:
Mf
Case No. 18CV325365
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF
CITY OF MILPITAS
1
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE.
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864
I
GENERAL DENIAL
Answering each and every allegation of each and every paragraph of each cause of action
of the cross-complaint herein, this answering cross-defendant denies each and every, all and
singular, generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively, the allegations therein
contained, and each of them; further, answering the cross-complaint, and each and every part of
each and every cause of action therein contained, this answering cross-defendant denies that cross-
complainant has been injured or damaged as a proximate result of any act or omission on the part
of this answering cross-defendant as alleged, or in any other way whatsoever, or at all; further
answering the cross-complaint, and each and every part of each and every cause of action therein
contained, this answering cross-defendant denies that cross-complainant has been damaged in any
of the various sums alleged to have been unascertained at the time of the filing of the cross-
complaint, or in any other sum or sums whatsoever, or at all.
I.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE
to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that
plaintiffs’ complaint and cross-complainant’s cross-complaint fail to state facts sufficient to
constitute a or any cause of action against this answering cross-defendant.
Til.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE
to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant is informed
and believes and thereon alleges that at the time and place of the accident in question, cross-
complainant and plaintiffs’ decedent were guilty of carelessness and negligence in and about the
matters and things set forth in cross-complaint; fhat said carelessness and negligence on cross-
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITAS3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864
LAW OFFICES OF
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP
x
complainant and plaintiffs’ decedent own part proximately caused and contributed to the happening
of the accident in question and the resultant alleged injuries and damages to cross-complainant, if
any.
Iv.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault Unknown Third Party)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE
to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, and to each and every purported cause of
action contained therein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that at the time and place of the
events described in plaintiffs’ complaint and cross-complainant’s cross-complaint, persons and
entities as yet unknown to answering cross-defendant were careless, negligent, in breach of
contract, in breach of fiduciary duty, in breach of warranty, express or implied, strictly liable and/or
otherwise legally at fault in and about the matters and things alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint and
cross-complainant’s cross-complaint which comparative negligence, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of warranty, strict liability and/or other legal fault proximately caused or
contributed to the injuries and damages complained of, if any there were or are, and that liability
should be apportioned among this answering cross-defendant and said persons and entities based
upon their respective percentages of comparative fault.
Vv.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to
cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that at the
time and place referred to in plaintiffs’ complaint, plaintiffs’ decedent reasonably ‘and impliedly
voluntarily assumed the risk of injury and damage to them and that any injury or damage suffered by
plaintiffs’ decedent at said time and place was voluntarily assumed by plaintiffs’ decedent.
Ml
Mf
3
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864
wn
VI.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Proposition 51)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE
to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, and to each and every purported cause of
action contained therein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that the injuries of which plaintiffs
and cross-complainant complains, and for which cross-complainant seeks indemnity, are the
proximate result of the acts, errors or omissions, negligence or other legal fault of parties,
codefendants, persons, partnerships, corporations and entities, both named and unnamed. By virtue
of the provisions of Civil Code section 1431 et seq. (Proposition 51, adopted June 3, 1986),
answering cross-defendant respectfully requests that damages, if any, be allocated and apportioned
amongst all causative factors and that cross-defendant be found legally responsible only for its
determined share of legal fault.
VIL.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(American Motorcycle)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE
to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on filed herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that
at the time and place of the events described in said cross-complaint, plaintiffs’ decedent was
careless, negligent, or otherwise legally at fault and that such carelessness, negligence or other legal
fault on the part of plaintiffs’ decedent proximately caused or contributed, in whole or in part, to
the injuries, losses and damages of which they complain, if any there are; by reason of these
premises, cross-defendant respectfully requests that damages be apportioned according to the
principles of comparative fault as set forth in decision of American Motor Cycle Association v.
Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 [146 Cal.Rptr. 182] and that cross-complainant’s recovery be
reduced in direct proportion to the amounts of said contributory or other legal fault.
Mt
Mit
4
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE.
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864.
Vill.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Mitigation of Damages)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE
to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that
following the alleged incident herein, plaintiffs and cross-complainant failed and neglected to
mitigate damages, and that said conduct or failure of conduct proximately caused and contributed
to the damages sustained by it, if any.
Ix.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE
to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that
plaintiffs and cross-complainant, with the exercise of reasonable diligence and effort, could have
mitigated the damages alleged in the cross-complaint; that the resulting damages, if any complained
of in said complaint, were directly and proximately caused by the failure, neglect and refusal of
plaintiffs and cross-complainant to exercise reasonable diligence and effort to mitigate the damages
alleged.
X.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Due Care)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE
to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that
at all times. referenced in the plaintiffs’ operative complaint and cross-complainant’s cross-
complaint, this answering defendant was traveling along the subject roadway with all due care.
Mit
Ml
Mt
5
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864
YD WN BF WwW WN
XI.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver & Estoppel)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE
to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges cross-
complainant is barred from claiming or recovering any relief as set forth in the cross-complaint by
the equitable doctrines of waiver and estoppel.
XII.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Right to Assert Additional Affirmative Defenses)
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE
to the cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that cross-defendant
presently has insufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to whether
cross-defendant may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses. Accordingly, answering cross-
defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery and/or investigation
reveals a factual and/or legal basis for such affirmative defenses.
WHEREFORE, cross-defendant prays as follows:
1. For dismissal of cross-complainant’s cross-complaint against cross-defendant with
prejudice;
2. An award of cross-defendant’s costs, disbursements and any reasonable attorney’s
fees incurred in this action;
3. And any further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: september 22420109, MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP
DOUGLAS A. SEARS, ESQ., Attorneys
for Defendant and Cross-Defendant,
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA
6
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864
YA Dn FF WwW Ww
RE: xxxx v. CITY OF MILPITAS, et al.
Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 18CV325365
PROOF OF SERVICE
[Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1011, 1013, 1013(a)(3) & 2015.5]
I am a resident of the United States and employed in Sacramento County. I am over the age
of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 3638
American River Drive, Sacramento, California.
On this date, I served: LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITAS
{1 BY FAX: by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s)
set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
[XX] BY MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set
forth below. I am readily familiar with my firm’s practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in
the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is
presumed invalid if postal cancellation date of postage meter date is more than 1 day after
date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
{] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: by causing document(s) to be picked up by an overnight
delivery service company for delivery to the address(es) on the next business day.
{] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing personal delivery of the document(s) listed
above to the person(s) at the addressee(s) set forth below.
0 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: by sending the attached document via electronic mail to the
e-mail addresses set forth below:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 2 3 day of September, 2019, at Sacramento, California.
d Aline Perusse
7
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP
3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864
SERVICE LIST
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Timothy D. McMahon
Ben Stoddard
CORSIGLIA, MCMAHON & ALLARD
96 North Third Street, Suite 620
San Jose, CA 95112
Tele: (408) 289-1417
Fax: (408) 289-8127
ben@cmalaw.net
Counsel for Defendant City of Milpitas
Todd H. Master
Lisa K. Rauch
HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY
1900 O’Farrell Street, Ste. 280
San Mateo, CA 94403
Tel: (650) 365-7715
Fax: (650) 364-5297
lrauch@hrmrlaw.com
Counsel for Defendant HMH Engineers
Counsel for Fehr & Peers
Dion N. Cominos
Catherine A. Salah
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
275 Battery Street, Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 875-3133
Fax: (415) 986-8054
dcominos@grsm.com
csalah@grsm.com
David A. Eriksen
Nannette De Lara
Adam Polakoff
SEVERSON & WERSON
One Embacadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 398-3344
Fax: (415) 956-0439
dae@severson.com
ndl@severson.com
amp@severson.com
Counsel for Ghilotti Construction Company
Jennifer K. Stinnett
Erin M. Stratte
CHRISTENSEN HSU SIPES LLP
2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 315
Sacramento, CA 95833
Tel: (916) 443-6909
Fax: (916) 313-0645
jennifer@chs.law
erin@chs.law
8
LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITAS
Preview
LAW OFFICES OF MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 Law Offices of MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP DOUGLAS A. SEARS, ESQ. (SBN 48646) 3638 American River Drive Sacramento, California 95864 Telephone: (916) 978-3434 Facsimile: (916) 978-3430 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Defendant, LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA xxxx xxxx; NEHA xxxx; GORI xxxx; SHALU xxxx; RAKHI xxxx; ANJU xxxx; Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MILPITAS; LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA; PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; and DOES 1-40, inclusive, Defendants. CITY OF MILPITAS, Cross-Complainant, Vv. LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA; and ROES 1 through 50, inclusive, Cross- Defendants. COMES NOW, cross-defendant LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA, and in answering cross- complainant CITY OF MILPITAS’s cross-complaint herein admits, denies, and alleges, as follows: Mf Case No. 18CV325365 LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITAS 1 LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE. SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 I GENERAL DENIAL Answering each and every allegation of each and every paragraph of each cause of action of the cross-complaint herein, this answering cross-defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively, the allegations therein contained, and each of them; further, answering the cross-complaint, and each and every part of each and every cause of action therein contained, this answering cross-defendant denies that cross- complainant has been injured or damaged as a proximate result of any act or omission on the part of this answering cross-defendant as alleged, or in any other way whatsoever, or at all; further answering the cross-complaint, and each and every part of each and every cause of action therein contained, this answering cross-defendant denies that cross-complainant has been damaged in any of the various sums alleged to have been unascertained at the time of the filing of the cross- complaint, or in any other sum or sums whatsoever, or at all. I. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ complaint and cross-complainant’s cross-complaint fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a or any cause of action against this answering cross-defendant. Til. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at the time and place of the accident in question, cross- complainant and plaintiffs’ decedent were guilty of carelessness and negligence in and about the matters and things set forth in cross-complaint; fhat said carelessness and negligence on cross- LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITAS3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 LAW OFFICES OF MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP x complainant and plaintiffs’ decedent own part proximately caused and contributed to the happening of the accident in question and the resultant alleged injuries and damages to cross-complainant, if any. Iv. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault Unknown Third Party) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, and to each and every purported cause of action contained therein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that at the time and place of the events described in plaintiffs’ complaint and cross-complainant’s cross-complaint, persons and entities as yet unknown to answering cross-defendant were careless, negligent, in breach of contract, in breach of fiduciary duty, in breach of warranty, express or implied, strictly liable and/or otherwise legally at fault in and about the matters and things alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint and cross-complainant’s cross-complaint which comparative negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of warranty, strict liability and/or other legal fault proximately caused or contributed to the injuries and damages complained of, if any there were or are, and that liability should be apportioned among this answering cross-defendant and said persons and entities based upon their respective percentages of comparative fault. Vv. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumption of Risk) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that at the time and place referred to in plaintiffs’ complaint, plaintiffs’ decedent reasonably ‘and impliedly voluntarily assumed the risk of injury and damage to them and that any injury or damage suffered by plaintiffs’ decedent at said time and place was voluntarily assumed by plaintiffs’ decedent. Ml Mf 3 LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 wn VI. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Proposition 51) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, and to each and every purported cause of action contained therein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that the injuries of which plaintiffs and cross-complainant complains, and for which cross-complainant seeks indemnity, are the proximate result of the acts, errors or omissions, negligence or other legal fault of parties, codefendants, persons, partnerships, corporations and entities, both named and unnamed. By virtue of the provisions of Civil Code section 1431 et seq. (Proposition 51, adopted June 3, 1986), answering cross-defendant respectfully requests that damages, if any, be allocated and apportioned amongst all causative factors and that cross-defendant be found legally responsible only for its determined share of legal fault. VIL. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (American Motorcycle) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on filed herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that at the time and place of the events described in said cross-complaint, plaintiffs’ decedent was careless, negligent, or otherwise legally at fault and that such carelessness, negligence or other legal fault on the part of plaintiffs’ decedent proximately caused or contributed, in whole or in part, to the injuries, losses and damages of which they complain, if any there are; by reason of these premises, cross-defendant respectfully requests that damages be apportioned according to the principles of comparative fault as set forth in decision of American Motor Cycle Association v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 [146 Cal.Rptr. 182] and that cross-complainant’s recovery be reduced in direct proportion to the amounts of said contributory or other legal fault. Mt Mit 4 LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE. SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864. Vill. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mitigation of Damages) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that following the alleged incident herein, plaintiffs and cross-complainant failed and neglected to mitigate damages, and that said conduct or failure of conduct proximately caused and contributed to the damages sustained by it, if any. Ix. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that plaintiffs and cross-complainant, with the exercise of reasonable diligence and effort, could have mitigated the damages alleged in the cross-complaint; that the resulting damages, if any complained of in said complaint, were directly and proximately caused by the failure, neglect and refusal of plaintiffs and cross-complainant to exercise reasonable diligence and effort to mitigate the damages alleged. X. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Due Care) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that at all times. referenced in the plaintiffs’ operative complaint and cross-complainant’s cross- complaint, this answering defendant was traveling along the subject roadway with all due care. Mit Ml Mt 5 LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 YD WN BF WwW WN XI. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver & Estoppel) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges cross- complainant is barred from claiming or recovering any relief as set forth in the cross-complaint by the equitable doctrines of waiver and estoppel. XII. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Right to Assert Additional Affirmative Defenses) AS AND FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND DEFENSE to the cross-complaint on file herein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that cross-defendant presently has insufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to whether cross-defendant may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses. Accordingly, answering cross- defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery and/or investigation reveals a factual and/or legal basis for such affirmative defenses. WHEREFORE, cross-defendant prays as follows: 1. For dismissal of cross-complainant’s cross-complaint against cross-defendant with prejudice; 2. An award of cross-defendant’s costs, disbursements and any reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action; 3. And any further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: september 22420109, MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP DOUGLAS A. SEARS, ESQ., Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Defendant, LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA 6 LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 YA Dn FF WwW Ww RE: xxxx v. CITY OF MILPITAS, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 18CV325365 PROOF OF SERVICE [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1011, 1013, 1013(a)(3) & 2015.5] I am a resident of the United States and employed in Sacramento County. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 3638 American River Drive, Sacramento, California. On this date, I served: LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITAS {1 BY FAX: by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. [XX] BY MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with my firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date of postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. {] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: by causing document(s) to be picked up by an overnight delivery service company for delivery to the address(es) on the next business day. {] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing personal delivery of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the addressee(s) set forth below. 0 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: by sending the attached document via electronic mail to the e-mail addresses set forth below: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 2 3 day of September, 2019, at Sacramento, California. d Aline Perusse 7 LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITASLAW OFFICES OF MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP 3638 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95864 SERVICE LIST Counsel for Plaintiffs Timothy D. McMahon Ben Stoddard CORSIGLIA, MCMAHON & ALLARD 96 North Third Street, Suite 620 San Jose, CA 95112 Tele: (408) 289-1417 Fax: (408) 289-8127 ben@cmalaw.net Counsel for Defendant City of Milpitas Todd H. Master Lisa K. Rauch HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY 1900 O’Farrell Street, Ste. 280 San Mateo, CA 94403 Tel: (650) 365-7715 Fax: (650) 364-5297 lrauch@hrmrlaw.com Counsel for Defendant HMH Engineers Counsel for Fehr & Peers Dion N. Cominos Catherine A. Salah GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 275 Battery Street, Ste. 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 875-3133 Fax: (415) 986-8054 dcominos@grsm.com csalah@grsm.com David A. Eriksen Nannette De Lara Adam Polakoff SEVERSON & WERSON One Embacadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 398-3344 Fax: (415) 956-0439 dae@severson.com ndl@severson.com amp@severson.com Counsel for Ghilotti Construction Company Jennifer K. Stinnett Erin M. Stratte CHRISTENSEN HSU SIPES LLP 2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 315 Sacramento, CA 95833 Tel: (916) 443-6909 Fax: (916) 313-0645 jennifer@chs.law erin@chs.law 8 LORELAY ROBLES-PARTIDA’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CITY OF MILPITAS